A CIO Blog with a twist; majority of my peer CIOs talk about the challenges they face with vendors, internal customers, Business folks and when things get through the airwaves, the typical response is "Oh I See". Some of you may disagree with my meanderings and that's okay. It's largely experiential and sometimes a lot of questions

Updated every Monday. Views are personal

Monday, February 27, 2017

The review meeting was getting hot and interesting; the
function head was being questioned on the lack of leadership and ability to
influence business units to follow defined standards; after all he had defined
the standards and formulated implementation guidelines. Then why was he not
able to get the business to follow them ? Weren’t the standards touted as
industry benchmark, leading edge best practices, and emerging technologies that
would put the group in leadership position locally and among the best globally ?

Matrix organizations have interesting group dynamics; there
is functional reporting normally a dotted line to the department head and a
straight line reporting typically to business unit in a diversified business
group or geographical unit like a country head in a multinational company. In
almost all cases the straight line drives the agenda for the person with the
dotted line is left to drive synergies, cost optimization, standards, governance
models, and the unified agenda across business units/countries.

For the newly inducted CIO it was not the first time working
in a matrix structure, his earlier avatar had clearly defined boundaries for
each role. At every node of the matrix the accountabilities were commensurate
to the authority vested and influence expected. He had thrived in the position
that helped bring value to both sides; his managers – straight line and dotted
– acknowledged the contribution and maturity. Teams within his span of control
as well as the matrix into which he reported enjoyed good relationships.

He took the role for its larger span of control, a different
industry and domain, the challenge and the opportunities the new role presented
and off course monetary value. Overall it appeared to be a great jump from his
prior assignment which had reached a plateau. Reality hit him hard on his head
when he met his peers and collective boss – the CEO in the first management
meeting. The structure was unique to him and the dynamics hitherto unknown,
made his skin crawl on his ability to create professional success.

Each group function head played two roles: the first to set
strategy, direction and define standards that the group was expected to follow.
This part was easy for most of the CXOs and function heads who were
knowledgeable and well recognized as high performers in the industry. The group
of experts thus depended on the partner ecosystem to help them craft the
solutions and processes that were expected to be followed by business units;
implementation was also left to the respective business unit functional heads.

Business functional teams were not obligated to follow
directives or policies defined by the group; they could almost get away with
anarchy. Matrix reporting had created a structure that the straight line
manager could override the dotted or define alternate path for his business
unit. It would appear to be a ceremonial position with a lot of responsibility
but no authority to control outcomes, a fact that did not surface during the
interview. Results were expected from the titular heads to ensure that the
group has synergies and commonality.

The specific case really did not matter, it required a
different structure and approach to solve the problem at hand. The Group CIO
reasoned it out with the Group CEO and other peers in the room to highlight
limitations the structure imposed; he also pointed out cases where mandates
were followed, the group heads had ensured that respective members were subservient
or underqualified thus open to listening and following diktats. The problem it
created was larger than the current issue being discussed with suboptimal
talent.

Making some sense to those present, the CIO pushed forth the
agenda to unify the team; while the structure could be amended over a period of
time, he gained acceptance to the idea and way of working. Step by step he
worked on the antagonists to the idea, nudging, pushing, helping them win, he
brought them to neutral ground within 6 months. A surge of activity followed
with the group now harmonized and working with agility and synergizing effort,
they reduced individual budget allocations and time to market.

Is the model replicable ? The answer is yes though requiring
significant effort beyond normal for the leader to bring everyone to common and
shared objectives. Instances can be found widespread of failure to capitalize
on such an opportunity, accepting destiny and remaining an Advisor whose
knowledge and expertise stays underleveraged by enterprises. Power struggles
are always detrimental to progress, it would serve leaders and corporations
well to recognize these before they become a malaise for the company.

Monday, February 20, 2017

It was a difficult project to begin with and starting from
the business team and the solution providers and the implementation team were
all cautious in their predictions of success. In this part of the world it was
the first time that such an audacious project was been executed; there were a
handful of global precedents and they too had seen significant challenges in
achieving successful adoption by the business. The team attempting the feat was
a collection of disparate skills which added to the challenge, they had no
choice.

The project was conceptualized by the CEO – it could have
been termed as his pet project – who painted a dream that few could visualize. He
was convinced that if he did pull it off it would be a benchmark in an industry
that was beset with delays, cost overruns and quality issues. His man Friday
and close confidant was put on the job to find people willing to take the risk
and become part of the team. Thus empowered, man Friday reached out far and
wide to enroll an eclectic group which had created unreasonable success in the
past.

Naysayers many, they warned citing instances of failures of
mammoth proportions; any normal person would have probably been dissuaded, but
the assorted team had never said no to any danger – perceived or real. Their
confidence in attempting the journey was akin to the first team that
successfully climbed virgin peaks. Internal pessimists decided to go along with
a detached passion while the optimists decided to take on the project of their
lives to partake in the glory should the summit be achieved.

So the project got off to a tentative start with the bunch
of experts with no prior experience but loads of attitude, commitment and
willingness to explore uncharted territories. They broke down the problem into
micro steps which appeared achievable even by rookies. A monitoring system was
put in place to carefully analyze every step, sign-off, and celebrate every
step that took them forward. Challenges were scrutinized and alternatives
tested with speed until they found the solution that fit the mosaic.

Stumbling through the journey the team slowly aligned to the
task at hand; each individual contributor came from high ground of past success
with associated ego and a winning formula that worked for them. The CEO stayed
glued to the ground taking stock frequently, pushing the team to drop their
differences and doubts. It took effort for them to arrive at common ground, but
they did in their loyalty to the CEO and the challenge the project represented,
a peak unconquered, a path untrodden, a batch un-lapelled.

Collectively the group now functioned like a well-oiled
machine; the journey seemed easier than it did at the beginning, the road
smoother and the target achievable. The CEO continued to charge the team
showcasing their success to one and all while plaudits were showered on his audacious
vision. As the finish line showed up on the horizon it brought many doubters
back wanting to bask in the derived glory; their disconnect from the project
visible, their faces clearly plastic in their celebration of imminent
achievement.

Study conducted by Standish Group for over two decades
clearly outlines the first and foremost reason for project failure as lack of Management
focus; this project had more than a fair share of management oversight, in fact
at times the group wished that they would be left alone to work. The CEO though
overpowering in his demeanor, he knew when to back off and when to push. The end
result was for everyone to see and learn from; the industry celebrated his
success and many attempted to emulate it.

On another part of the world another enterprise in the same
industry with the same set of internal and external challenges decided to
pursue the safe path which was the norm. They too started their journey around
the same time with resources available unwilling to take undue risks. The CEO –
an able man – believed that his will shall be done, delegated the
responsibility with an occasional tab on progress. Hearing of success in the
other project he berated his team and their inability to complete simple tasks.

Leadership is not just about defining the vision and
charging the team to execute; effective leadership requires a lot more, a
connect to the ground, knowing when to push, when to back off, finding the
right resources, and empowering them while keeping different personalities
together. Leadership is not vested only with the CEO or a title holder, it can
be practiced by anyone who is charged with a cause and willing to take a stand.
Are you ready to get into discomfort zone to try something new ?

Monday, February 13, 2017

A: Much feared and revered he had iconic status in the
industry; a hermit who was rarely seen in any public forum, stories were abound
on his persona. Everyone knew he was a workaholic for who spending 12-14 hours
at workplace was normal; he was famously notorious for midnight meetings and
negotiations in the wee hours. Stories spread on his passionate work style and
commitment to the enterprise, he was not a role model but inspired a generation
of workers; he was synonymous with the company he worked in.

He made few friends with his ruthless style, it was
difficult to find people who could say that they knew him as a person. Little
was known of his antecedents or when he would give way to the next level of
leadership. Commanding respect he was enigma that the industry had not been
able to solve. 80 hour work weeks can be punishing even to the fittest, it
finally did take its toll leaving him incapacitated for a while; understanding
mortality, he hired a trusted lieutenant who modelled himself in his shadow.

Providence or coincidence, the teammate fell to pressure faster
with serious medical condition which was rare for someone that young; but by this
time the superman was back in full force thus taking up the slack. Over time their
collective success elevated them into role models with many attempting to
emulate their success little realizing the price they had paid to rise to the
summit. They had sacrificed their personal lives in favor of their careers –
families that were well provided for but emotionally disconnected.

B: Envied by many his steady climb did not go unnoticed;
well read, articulate and opinionated in a good way, he was always ready to
help his peers. He was a prominent speaker across conferences and events –
people loved his views and thoughts which were at times audacious but pragmatic
enough to be followed. Rarely one to put in long hours excluding exigencies, he
did not expect his team to burn the midnight oil, but work to a plan with
efficiency which he demonstrated and expected of his vendors too.

His team revered him and trusted him to keep the flag flying
high and pass on credit where due; he coached them and encouraged them to take
calculated risks – ready to take the brunt of failed experiments. Vendors loved
him for shooting straight, his candid talk and fair approach to value
realization on a sale while negotiating to build relationships with shared
success. Always open to case studies and references it made him a beacon for
every company that he worked in and industry that he adopted.

His family could be seen beaming at his success openly in
family gatherings as well as industry events which added to his persona. He
dissuaded people from imitating him, his mannerisms or style; but he created
many leaders from within his team who grew to prominence in the industry – some
also acknowledging the role their mentor played in their success. Shortcomings
if any stayed hidden or overpowered by his professional success and the fact
that he was always available to Management Trainee or CEO alike.

The contrast between A and B appears to be extreme and
exaggerated; their approach to work and life are quite divergent.
Professionally both created success that set benchmark in their respective
industries, both were sought after by the industry, both loved and thrived in
the attention showered by big and small. Their paths crossed many times with
each acknowledging the other; they knew about the differences between their
approaches, neither commented on them and the industry took them for what they
represented.

While A continued to stay invested in his professional life beyond
the normal retirement age, B got off the corporate treadmill early to enjoy the
fruits of labor and started his entrepreneurial journey. Many years passed by
with A now taking a backseat and B fading away from the scene; providence
arranged their meeting which brought them face to face again. His reputation
had stayed firm even when A had taken a backseat in most matters; the meeting
never took formal overtones with mutual respect demanding a different setting.

The transaction happened quickly, the relationship built on
a strong foundation stood the test of time. For B it was a validation of the
seeds he had sown carefully over the years – of treating people with respect
irrespective of rank and position, of helping without expecting anything in
return, of being the spokesperson when none ventured, of being a good human being.
Life goes round in circles; invest in people and relationships, the returns
over the long run are worth a lot more than you can imagine.

Monday, February 06, 2017

My first tryst with cost happened a little more than a
decade back when the company reins were taken over by the CFO; he replaced a
young charismatic CEO who found greener grass elsewhere. The first review
meeting conducted by the CFO with score of year of experience announced an
initiative to control costs – something he had harped about in the past but was
overruled. His predecessor always worked on the numerator (revenue) and not the
denominator (cost) when looking at profits and ratios.

Many years later I was facing a sense of déjà vu in another
company when the new management which had initially created high costs now
under pressure from shareholders started an initiative to cut costs. Fast
forward to current business environment when everyone is uncertain of global
trends and policies that potentially impact parts of business and resultant
revenue and profits – quite a few are preparing to cut costs to sustain impact
if any to short-term and long-term operations and business strategies.

Why not cut the flab or get rid of deadwood that the
organization may have collected on the way. In almost all such cases of cost
containment, it is typically a new set of Managers who initiate the exercise
wanting to sculpt the company in a specific way getting rid of legacy. The
other interesting fact is that almost all such cases a big name super expensive
consulting company – coincidentally the same one in all cases that I have seen
– is hired to suggest ways and means to reduce cost. So what’s new in cost
cutting ?

Predictably it starts with hiring freeze, HR makes a list of
low performers (exception Finance team) travel freeze for everyone except the
Management; the inner circle gets discretionary approvals, everyone else is
expected to use Audio/Videoconferencing. Cookies and biscuits disappear from
meetings, packaged bottled water is replaced by refilled water bottles, control
on printing with introduction of network printers, deferred training and
development budgets, and last but not the least a cut in IT operating budgets
and new projects.

Frugality in times of plenty is a virtue practiced by a few
and they stay immune to variability in the market conditions. Working for one
such company we celebrated our most profitable year when everyone was
struggling with costs in the year of black swans. If that is not part of the
organizational DNA, operating expenses should ideally be reviewed periodically
and not necessarily wait for a formal cost control exercise. The challenge lies
with some types of costs which do not lend themselves to reduction without an
impact.

So when as a CIO I was asked to cut cost by 20%, it created
an interesting predicament; can I cut manpower supporting business as usual ?
Should I get rid of my Project Managers who have delivered successfully in the
past ? Shall I ask the support partner to reduce onsite manpower without
impacting SLA ? Can I cut network bandwidth across and hope that the business
will not notice the resultant impact ? Annual Maintenance Costs are locked in
with COTS and hardware vendors, no not much scope there.

Can hardware refresh be deferred ? For desktops and laptops
potentially by few quarters, the server upgrades cannot if the transaction
volume continues organic growth. New projects can be deferred or pushed into
functional P&L, after all if they want the new solutions, they will find a
way to justify. In both cases IT took a similar approach to cost cuts with
partial success; reduction in operating expenses was marginal since the
contracts were already optimized by Purchase and Finance, the deferred capital
investment made up for the shortfall.

Decades apart the rest of the company dithered and murmurs
of unrest were heard across the companies. The big consultant bill horrified
the employees who had seen their friends depart and morale go south across
functions. The net resultant saving was something they could have achieved by
involving the staff across levels invoking their emotional connect towards
their adopted company. The leadership team declared success gloating in the
derived glory to gift themselves an exotic international offsite as a reward.

So much for cost savings which were believed to be necessary
for survival of the company (read the management team). Mature leaders do not
take conventional wisdom at face value, they internalize the opportunity and
seek collaboration across layers for sure shot success. E.g. the frugal company
that beat profits in a lean year by calling upon all employees to contribute;
it enrolled every CXO to the cause not by setting targets, but appealing to
help the company and how they did ? It remains a benchmark for the company !